Short-Term Effects of Using Pedometers to Increase Daily Physical Activity in Smokers: A Randomized Trial

Effectiveness of pedometer-based walking programmes in improving some modifiable risk factors of stroke among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review, theoretical synthesis and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pedometer-based walking programs hold promise as a health promotion strategy for stroke prevention in community-dwelling older adults, particularly when targeted at physical activity-related modifiable risk factors. The question arises: What is the effectiveness of pedometer-based walking program interventions in improving modifiable stroke risk factors among community-dwelling older adults?

METHOD

Eight databases were searched up to December 2nd, 2023, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocol. Inclusion criteria focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTS) involving community-dwelling older adults and reported in English. Two independent reviewers utilized Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) tool to extract data, assess eligibility, evaluate study quality, and identify potential bias. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was employed as summary statistics for primary -physical activity level -and secondary outcomes related to cardiovascular function (blood pressure) and metabolic syndrome, including obesity (measured by body mass index and waist circumference), fasting blood sugar, glycated hemoglobin, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides. A random-effects model was used to generate summary estimates of effects.

RESULTS

The review analyzed eight studies involving 1546 participants aged 60-85 years, with 1348 successfully completing the studies. Across these studies, pedometer-based walking programs were implemented 2-3 times per week, with sessions lasting 40-60 minutes, over a duration of 4-26 weeks. The risk of bias varied from high to moderate. Our narrative synthesis revealed positive trends in HDL-C levels, fasting blood sugar, and glycated hemoglobin, suggesting improved glycemic control and long-term blood sugar management. However, the impact on triglycerides was only marginal. Primary meta-analysis demonstrated significantly improved physical activity behavior (SMD=0.44,95%CI:0.26, 0.61,p=<0.00001;I2=0%;4 studies; 532 participants) and systolic blood pressure (SMD=-0.34,95%CI:-0.59,-0.09;p=<0.008;I2=65%,2 studies;249 participants), unlike diastolic blood pressure (SMD=0.13,95%CI:-0.13,-0.38,p=0.33; I2=91%; 2 studies; 237 participants). Interventions based on social cognitive, self-efficacy, and self-efficiency theory(ies), and social cognitive theory applied in an ecological framework, were linked to successful physical activity behavior outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Pedometer-based walking programs, utilizing interpersonal health behavior theory/ecological framework, enhance physical activity behavior and have antihypertensive effects in community-dwelling older adults. While they do not significantly affect diastolic blood pressure, these programs potentially serve as a primary stroke prevention strategy aligning with global health goals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration Number: INPLASY202230118.

Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effectiveness of physical activity monitor (PAM) based interventions among adults and explore reasons for the heterogeneity.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY SELECTION

The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on 4 June 2021. Eligible randomised controlled trials compared interventions in which adults received feedback from PAMs with control interventions in which no feedback was provided. No restrictions on type of outcome measurement, publication date, or language were applied.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesise the results. The certainty of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The three primary outcomes of interest were physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity, and sedentary time.

RESULTS

121 randomised controlled trials with 141 study comparisons, including 16 743 participants, were included. The PAM based interventions showed a moderate effect (standardised mean difference 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.55) on physical activity, equivalent to 1235 daily steps; a small effect (0.23, 0.16 to 0.30) on moderate to vigorous physical activity, equivalent to 48.5 weekly minutes; and a small insignificant effect (-0.12, -0.25 to 0.01) on sedentary time, equal to 9.9 daily minutes. All outcomes favoured the PAM interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of evidence was low for the effect of PAM based interventions on physical activity and moderate for moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time. PAM based interventions are safe and effectively increase physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity. The effect on physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity is well established but might be overestimated owing to publication bias.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018102719.

The effects of step-count monitoring interventions on physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based randomised controlled trials in adults

Background

Step-count monitors (pedometers, body-worn trackers and smartphone applications) can increase walking, helping to tackle physical inactivity. We aimed to assess the effect of step-count monitors on physical activity (PA) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) amongst community-dwelling adults; including longer-term effects, differences between step-count monitors, and between intervention components.

Methods

Systematic literature searches in seven databases identified RCTs in healthy adults, or those at risk of disease, published between January 2000–April 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcome was mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in steps at follow-up between treatment and control groups. Our preferred outcome measure was from studies with follow-up steps adjusted for baseline steps (change studies); but we also included studies reporting follow-up differences only (end-point studies). Multivariate-meta-analysis used random-effect estimates at different time-points for change studies only. Meta-regression compared effects of different step-count monitors and intervention components amongst all studies at ≤4 months.

Results

Of 12,491 records identified, 70 RCTs (at generally low risk of bias) were included, with 57 trials (16,355 participants) included in meta-analyses: 32 provided change from baseline data; 25 provided end-point only. Multivariate meta-analysis of the 32 change studies demonstrated step-counts favoured intervention groups: MD of 1126 steps/day 95%CI [787, 1466] at ≤4 months, 1050 steps/day [602, 1498] at 6 months, 464 steps/day [301, 626] at 1 year, 121 steps/day [− 64, 306] at 2 years and 434 steps/day [191, 676] at 3–4 years. Meta-regression of the 57 trials at ≤4 months demonstrated in mutually-adjusted analyses that: end-point were similar to change studies (+ 257 steps/day [− 417, 931]); body-worn trackers/smartphone applications were less effective than pedometers (− 834 steps/day [− 1542, − 126]); and interventions providing additional counselling/incentives were not better than those without (− 812 steps/day [− 1503, − 122]).

Conclusions

Step-count monitoring leads to short and long-term step-count increases, with no evidence that either body-worn trackers/smartphone applications, or additional counselling/incentives offer further benefit over simpler pedometer-based interventions. Simple step-count monitoring interventions should be prioritised to address the public health physical inactivity challenge.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO number CRD42017075810.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise, whether cardiovascular-type exercise or resistance exercise, may help people to give up smoking, particularly by reducing cigarette withdrawal symptoms and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared with a smoking cessation intervention alone or other non-exercise intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies, using the term 'exercise' or 'physical activity' in the title, abstract or keywords. The date of the most recent search was May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme alone or another non-exercise control group. Trials were required to recruit smokers wishing to quit or recent quitters, to assess abstinence as an outcome and have follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison, as either smoking cessation or relapse prevention. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 eligible trials with a total of 7279 adult participants randomised. Two studies focused on relapse prevention among smokers who had recently stopped smoking, and the remaining 22 studies were concerned with smoking cessation for smokers who wished to quit. Eleven studies were with women only and one with men only. Most studies recruited fairly inactive people. Most of the trials employed supervised, group-based cardiovascular-type exercise supplemented by a home-based exercise programme and combined with a multi-session cognitive behavioural smoking cessation programme. The comparator in most cases was a multi-session cognitive behavioural smoking cessation programme alone. Overall, we judged two studies to be at low risk of bias, 11 at high risk of bias, and 11 at unclear risk of bias. Among the 21 studies analysed, we found low-certainty evidence, limited by potential publication bias and by imprecision, comparing the effect of exercise plus smoking cessation support with smoking cessation support alone on smoking cessation outcomes (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.22; I² = 0%; 6607 participants). We excluded one study from this analysis as smoking abstinence rates for the study groups were not reported. There was no evidence of subgroup differences according to the type of exercise promoted; the subgroups considered were: cardiovascular-type exercise alone (17 studies), resistance training alone (one study), combined cardiovascular-type and resistance exercise (one study) and type of exercise not specified (two studies). The results were not significantly altered when we excluded trials with high risk of bias, or those with special populations, or those where smoking cessation intervention support was not matched between the intervention and control arms. Among the two relapse prevention studies, we found very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, that adding exercise to relapse prevention did not improve long-term abstinence compared with relapse prevention alone (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.47; I² = 0%; 453 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that adding exercise to smoking cessation support improves abstinence compared with support alone, but the evidence is insufficient to assess whether there is a modest benefit. Estimates of treatment effect were of low or very low certainty, because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and publication bias. Consequently, future trials may change these conclusions.

Fit & quit: An efficacy trial of two behavioral post-cessation weight gain interventions

While smoking cessation leads to significant improvements in both mortality and morbidity, post-cessation weight gain partially attenuates this benefit. Even though post-cessation weight gain is small (4.7 kg on average), it is a stated reason to delay cessation attempts and is associated with smoking relapse. Fit & Quit is a randomized, controlled efficacy trial that aims to examine the ability of a weight stability intervention and a weight loss intervention to reduce post-cessation weight gain. For this purpose, Fit & Quit will randomize participants to three conditions: (a) Small Changes, a weight gain prevention intervention; (b) Look AHEAD Intensive Lifestyle Intervention; and (c) a lower-intensity bibliotherapy intervention. All conditions will receive a highly efficacious behavioral (i.e., rate reduction skills, motivational interviewing) and pharmacological (i.e., varenicline) smoking cessation program. A total of 400 participants will be recruited and randomized to the three interventions. Participants will be recruited in waves, with 10 waves of approximately 40 participants per wave. The primary outcomes of this study include post-cessation weight gain and cessation status at 12-month follow-up. Fit & Quit will integrate and adapt the strongest evidence-based interventions available for weight management and smoking cessation. Fit & Quit is highly innovative in the areas of the target population, study design, and use of technology. For these reasons, we expect that Fit & Quit will make a significant public health contribution to curtailing the important cessation barrier of post-cessation weight gain.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of health-related behavioral interventions using portable activity sensing devices (PASDs)

BACKGROUND

Portable activity sensing devices (PASDs) have received significant interest as tools for objectively measuring activity-related parameters and promoting health-related outcomes. Studies of PASDs suggest the potential value of integrating them with behavioral interventions to improve intermediate and downstream clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review describes and evaluates evidence from controlled studies of interventions using PASDs on their effectiveness in health-related outcomes. Study quality was also assessed.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. We included English-language papers of controlled trials through 2015 reporting the effectiveness of PASDs in improving health-related outcomes in any population. We extracted and analyzed data on study characteristics including design, target population, interventions, and findings.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials met the inclusion criteria from a total of 9553 unique records. Study objectives varied greatly, but most sought to increase physical activity. Studies with a "passive" intervention arm using a PASD with minimal behavioral support generally did not demonstrate effectiveness in improving health-related outcomes. Interventions integrating PASDs with multiple behavioral change techniques were more likely to be effective, particularly for intermediate outcomes such as physical activity and weight loss. Trials had small sample sizes but were generally free of bias, except for blinding and selection bias.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion about the general health-related benefits of PASD interventions. PASD interventions may improve intermediate outcomes when coupled with multiple behavioral change techniques. Devices alone or with minimal behavioral change support are insufficient to change health-related outcomes.

A telephone-based intervention to promote physical activity during smoking cessation: a randomized controlled proof-of-concept study

Smoking and physical inactivity contribute to disproportionate disease burden among underserved adults. Telephone-based interventions (quitlines) are becoming the standard care for addressing smoking. There is increasing interest to determine whether quitlines can be utilized to administer interventions for other unhealthy behaviors. This study aims to examine the proof-of-concept and potential efficacy of a telephone-based behavioral counseling intervention to boost daily low-to-moderate physical activity among low-income, physically inactive smokers. Participants (N = 101) were randomized to receive 4 weeks of counseling prior to their smoking quit day that included either standard smoking cessation counseling (control) or the Step-up to Quit (SUTQ) intervention. SUTQ promoted daily walking to foster physical activity as a primary smoking urge management strategy and facilitate incremental increases in daily steps with the goal of achieving 7500 steps/day by the quit day in week 4. Exploratory structural equation modeling tested SUTQ effects on six measures of low-to-moderate physical activity (primary outcome) and smoking cue reactivity (secondary outcome) simultaneously in a single multivariate model with controlling variables. The sample was 51 % female and 77 % African-American, with a mean age of 42.1 years (SD = 10.9). Compared to the control condition, SUTQ intervention was associated with greater physical activity at week 4 (b = 0.51, z = 1.71, p = 0.08), with between-group differences sustained at follow-up. At week 4, the SUTQ group had higher 7-day mean steps/day (M = 7,207.25, SD = 4,276.03) than controls (M = 3,947.03, SD = 3,655.03) (t = 3.35; p < .01); and had more participants reach the >7500 steps/day goal (49% vs. 11 %, c2 = 10.78; p < .01), a difference that was sustained at 1-month follow-up (X2 = 9.04, p < .01) Effects of SUTQ treatment on cue reactivity were in the hypothesized direction but not significant (b = -0.29; z = -1.09, p = 0.27). To our knowledge, this is the first study to promote physical activity using telephone counseling in an underserved population of smokers known to have greater challenges with physical activity adoption and smoking cessation. The SUTQ approach suggests that integration of physical activity advice and support within the context of smoking cessation treatment has the potential to promote physical activity among smokers intending to quit.

Barriers associated with reduced physical activity in COPD patients

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the ability of COPD patients to perform activities of daily living (ADL); to identify barriers that prevent these individuals from performing ADL; and to correlate those barriers with dyspnea severity, six-minute walk test (6MWT), and an ADL limitation score.

METHODS:

In COPD patients and healthy, age-matched controls, the number of steps, the distance walked, and walking time were recorded with a triaxial accelerometer, for seven consecutive days. A questionnaire regarding perceived barriers and the London Chest Activity of Daily Living (LCADL) scale were used in order to identify the factors that prevent the performance of ADL. The severity of dyspnea was assessed with two scales, whereas submaximal exercise capacity was determined on the basis of the 6MWT.

RESULTS:

We evaluated 40 COPD patients and 40 controls. In comparison with the control values, the mean walk time was significantly shorter for COPD patients (68.5 ± 25.8 min/day vs. 105.2 ± 49.4 min/day; p < 0.001), as was the distance walked (3.9 ± 1.9 km/day vs. 6.4 ± 3.2 km/day; p < 0.001). The COPD patients also walked fewer steps/day. The most common self-reported barriers to performing ADL were lack of infrastructure, social influences, and lack of willpower. The 6MWT distance correlated with the results obtained with the accelerometer but not with the LCADL scale results.

CONCLUSIONS:

Patients with COPD are less active than are healthy adults of a comparable age. Physical inactivity and the barriers to performing ADL have immediate implications for clinical practice, calling for early intervention measures.

Promoting pre-quit physical activity to reduce cue reactivity among low-income sedentary smokers: A randomized proof of concept study

BACKGROUND

Smoking and lack of physical activity (PA) contribute to disproportionate rates of disease among low-income adults. Interventions that simultaneously address both risk behaviors have strong potential to reduce health disparities. Existing smoking-PA studies indicate promising results but have limited generalizability to low-income populations. The goal of this study is to assess the effects of an integrated behavioral counseling approach to promote low-to-moderate intensity PA (LMPA) and reduce short-term smoking cue reactivity among low-income sedentary smokers.

METHODS

This study uses a randomized, 2-group design with 4 measurement time points: baseline, quit day (week 4), 1-week and 1-month follow-up. Participants (sedentary, smoke>6 cigs/day) receive 4 weeks of either (a) standard smoking cessation counseling (SCC control) or (b) our Step-Up to Quit (SUTQ) intervention that integrates advice for LMPA with SCC. SUTQ counseling focuses on increasing daily steps (walking) to reach 7500-10,000/day by week 4 (quit day) and explicitly links short bouts of LMPA with smoking urge management. Potential for SUTQ to facilitate urge management will be assessed by comparing between-group differences in the reduction (extinction) of quit day cue reactivity. We will explore group differences in quit rates at 1-week and 1-month follow-up.

DISCUSSION

This novel approach overcomes gaps in the PA-smoking intervention literature by promoting a more realistic PA approach for sedentary populations, using an ecologically valid strategy, integrating LMPA with evidence-based SCC during a 4-week pre-quit period, and testing the SUTQ counseling model in a high-risk sample. Results will guide future efficacy and dissemination studies.

Long-term effects of a program to increase physical activity in smokers

BACKGROUND

Programs aimed at increasing physical activity in daily life (PADL) have generated growing interest to prevent the deleterious effects of physical inactivity. Recent literature has shown that a short-term protocol using pedometers increased PADL in smokers with normal lung function. However, the long-term effects of such a protocol were not yet studied. The objective of this study was to evaluate the results of 1-year follow-up after a program aimed at increasing PADL in smokers with normal lung function.

METHODS

Twenty-four smokers were followed (15 men; mean [interquartile range (IQR)], 51 [41-57] years of age; BMI, 26 [22-29] kg/m2; 20 [20-30] cigarettes/d). Subjects were assessed at baseline, immediately after completion of the program, and 1 year later for PADL, lung function, 6-min walking distance (6MWD), smoking habits, quality of life, anxiety, and depression. The 5-month program used pedometers and informative booklets as interventions.

RESULTS

The gains achieved after the program were maintained in the long term: steps/d (postprogram vs 1-year follow-up, mean [IQR]: 10,572 [9,804-12,237] vs 10,438 [9,151-12,862]); 6MWD (625 [530-694] m, 88 [81-97] % predicted vs 609 [539-694] m, 89 [81-96] % predicted), anxiety (34 [26-41] points vs 35 [36-47] points) and depression (6 [2-9] points vs 5 [2-11] points) (P > .05 for all). One year after the program, 20% of the subjects had quit smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

In smokers with normal lung function, improvements in daily physical activity, exercise capacity, anxiety, and depression obtained through a 5-month program aimed at increasing physical activity are sustained 1 year after completion of the program. Furthermore, such a program can contribute to smoking cessation in this population.

Reduction of physical activity in daily life and its determinants in smokers without airflow obstruction

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In smokers without airflow obstruction, detailed, objective and controlled quantification of the level of physical inactivity in daily life has never been performed. This study aimed to objectively assess the level of physical activity in daily life in adult smokers without airflow obstruction in comparison with matched non-smokers, and to investigate the determinants for daily physical activity in smokers.

METHODS

Sixty smokers (aged 50 (39-54) years) and 50 non-smokers (aged 48 (40-53) years) matched for gender, age, anthropometric characteristics, educational level, employment status and seasons of the year assessment period were cross-sectionally assessed regarding their daily physical activity with a step counter, besides assessment of lung function, functional exercise capacity, quality of life, anxiety, depression, self-reported comorbidities carbon monoxide level, nicotine dependence and smoking habits.

RESULTS

When compared with non-smokers, smokers walked less in daily life (7923 ± 3558 vs 9553 ± 3637 steps/day, respectively), presented worse lung function, functional exercise capacity, quality of life, anxiety and depression. Multiple regression analyses identified functional exercise capacity, Borg fatigue, self-reported motivation/physical activity behaviour and cardiac disease as significant determinants of number of steps/day in smokers (partial r(2)  = 0.10, 0.12, 0.16 and 0.05; b = 15, -997, 1207 and -2330 steps/day, respectively; overall fit of the model R(2)  = 0.38; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adult smokers without airflow obstruction presented reduced level of daily physical activity. Functional exercise capacity, extended fatigue sensation, aspects of motivation/physical activity behaviour and self-reported cardiac disease are significant determinants of physical activity in daily life in smokers.